Feedback for September 2006

I've been interested in evolution for as long as I can remember (my middle name is Darwin, literaly...like really literally), but there have always been a ton of holes in my knowledge of it (and therefore my ability to defend it growing up in a small town where people tend to think in quite conservative terms). This site is amazing. I still feel like I've only seen a fraction of what you have to offer.

So many of my own internal questions (transitional fossils, so-called irreducible complexity, the credibility of creation science's "evidence," the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, etc.) have been answered here. That answering has revealed what kind of gaps a little information can fill. My opinions on evolution have gone from what was essentially a "belief" to a true conviction based on fact. It's also given me ways to express to myself and others a lot of the ideas that I have trouble explaining to others, particularly the "goal-less" nature of evolution and it's analogy to a bush/tree instead of a line.

Growing up in the South with an intelligent, church-going family, I do have a lot of compassion for Christians, and I really appreciate seeing comments by the likes of Chris (?) Ho-Stuart and others expressing the idea that evolution and Christianity are in no way mutually exclusive and the fact that many Christians (even in the South) do not believe in Biblical literalism. In addition to trying to explain to fundamentalists the lack of a need to give up their core beliefs, I believe it gives atheistic proponents of evolution more reason to avoid judging and pigeon-holing any Christians that come along.

Anyway, enough with all that, thanks again.

I'm sure someone has already pointed out to you the mistake here - I'm presuming in the extract below that you're referring to James Hutton, if so I'm sure you're aware that he was not a catastrophist but perhaps, along with George Toulmin, among the first of the British uniformitarians.

Michelle Geric

"Catastrophism The name coined by William Whewell in 1832 to describe a view in geology championed by Hutton that the rate and mechanisms of past geological change are dramatically different than those of today."

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html

Perhaps this could be added to the entries about cosmological models requiring dark matter being rubbish because dark matter is made up?

If you people read the bible, it would be clear

Bye bye

A very interesting web site.

Thank you.

Stefan Dobratz.

Darwin's concept of natural selection carries unfavorable social ramifications. If evolution is by chance, then what commitment does man have to virtue? (being the only product of natural selection who can percieve virtue) Philosophically, natural selection states there is no good or bad, just chance and survival. How does the scientific community answer this question?

As a parent, I know how manipulative kids can be. With that in mind, it's amusing to speculate that some of these kids are simply conning their elders into doing their homework.

When you give Linnaeus's proverb: O Jehova, Quam ampla sunt tua opera! Quam sapienter ea fecisti! Quam plena est terra possessione tua!

There is given the year 1757, which must be wrong – the year should read 1758.

The full reference is: Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema naturae, ed. 10, Tomus I. Regnum animale. Impensis Direct. Laurentii Salvii.Holmiae.

This work also initiate the starting point of the binominal nomenclature for zoology!!

If you like to know more about Linnaeus feel free to link to this site: http://www.linnaeus.uu.se/online/index-en.html

All the very best, Lars Jonsson Museum of Evolution, Uppsala University

I have fairly recently visited this site, and I have viewed the Index To Creationists Claims sction with great interest. I found that anything that I would say against macroevolution has already been said. I have came to only one conclusion: this is a debate that will not end. Upon reading some of the responses to the claims I could only think "Do they expect THAT to be able to stop me?" So I attempted an the debate within the private walls of my mind taking every side and every argument that either side is capable of making until one side won the argument. Niether did.

Obviously an debate that occured entirely in one's own mentality isn't the most persuasive of arguments, but all I need to do is refer one to the feedback area to prove my point: this debate will never stop, and after looking at it from just about every perspective I can imagine, neither side is going to let it stop.

I am a Creationist, so what? Does this allow me greater access to some facilities than others? Does this make me inherintly idiotic? Does anyone really care? Does even Elohim Himself, if one would pardon the expression, give a damn? I would answer no to these, and since this seems to be a debate without winners, I will defend my beliefs only if directly challenged.

My feedback is that you guys continue to do a good job, this site is really great. I would also like to say this: for all I care now, this is philosophy. What it is NOT, is a tavern brawl; stop the insults, you only make your own side look bad. Auf Wiedersehen.

Secton II

1. "factual determination as whether" (as to whether)

Section IV

1. "the Plaintiffs. called ten witnesses" [superfluous period]

Section V

5. "also seams to support a balance view" (seems, balanced) "the earth and a1 life" (all life) 7. "between adjacent kind;" (kinds) [?] 8. "page XIX" (xix) 9. "page XX" (xx) 11. "page XX and XXI" (pages xx and xxi) 12. "various principals and laws" (principles) 14. "algae. one-celled organisms" [period should be comma]

Section VI

2. "the zeal of its adhereants" (adherents) 9. "carefully worded to be lees explicit" than" (less explicit than) 13. "was a mere adjectives" (adjective)

Section VII

3. "were in violation with" (violation of) [?]

"'Signifiance & responsibility' section on this page; Talk.Origins: Deception by Omission"

The page in question is on trueorigin.org -- a site I do not visit. The response was from Mark Isaak:

"I am surprised that someone claiming your critical thinking skills would fail to notice the multiple fallacies of Pascal's Wager. In particular, have you considered the possibility that God might reward honesty above self-serving sycophantic supplication? For an extensive discussion of Pascal's Wager, see this entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy."

What? Huh? First, I am not religious, I think Pascal's Wager is without merit, and I used to be a longtime fan of your site. Second, even though this was (apparently) 3 years ago, I am quite certain that I did *not* send the original "comment" and I don't know why my name and email address are attached to it. Third, the response isn't even about the comment! Please correct this, for it is obviously a huge error.

What worries me greatly is that creationists simply refuse to accept the rules by which science works:
(a) collect facts,
(b) build a hypothesis that explains the facts,
(c) make a prediction from the hypothesis,
(d) test the prediction against reality: if it fails the hypothesis is wrong, if it passes then the hypothesis becomes supported. But it is not ever proved, no matter how many tests it passes: the first test it fails makes it immediately invalid.
(e) try to explain ever more facts with the hypothesis.
(f) If the predictions of the hypothesis cover more and more facts, and one fails to find a counterexample, then over time the hypothesis becomes a theory.

A theory is an explanation of a large number of facts that is so good that it can be used to develop technologies.

Any system that does not work by these rules is not science, full stop. It is a matter of definition, not a mindset.

Replacing a failed theory with a new one is also subject to a rule: the new one must at least explain everything the old one explained. Newton's theory of gravity is wrong because it does not explain the precession of Mercury, whereas Einstein's does. However, Einstein's theory is only better than Newton's because Einstein's theory also explains all the facts that Newton's theory explains: it covers all the old facts and some more. Newton's theory is still a theory because it is good enough to send men to the Moon accurately. It is not good enough to use the GPS system though, we need Einstein's relativity for that.

It does not matter whether you find relativity or evolution unbelievable, against your religion, revolting, or whatever. The only thing that counts in science is whether or not it explains the facts. There is no other theory than evolution that explains so many facts in biology, and no counterexample has been found. Creationism or intelligent design fulfill the points (a) and (b): sure, creationism is an explanation of everything we see around us. But creationism does not fulfill the other points: making a testable prediction and going on. Therefore, it is a satisfactory explanation, but it just does not fulfill the definition of science.

Because creationism is simple to understand and stops short of requiring any intellectual effort, many people think evolution is equally easy to talk about. Science however is accumulative: we find ever more facts and we go ever deeper into the details. To understand evolution requires not an act of faith, but an effortful study. From the comments I read here it seems Creationists refuse this study also.

Robert.

ps. I believe your website is top notch and a valuable resource - thanks for all you're doing!

Recently, I had the opportunity to discuss Creationism with a bright young student. She challenged me with remarks about Earth’s true short age; Grand Canyon being evidence of Noah’s Flood; even that coal can be produced in a matter of months under proper pressure and heat. She went on to explain God’s plan included an imminent Armageddon - that is, destroying his own creation ala End Days hype. When I countered with facts debunking these notions she became defensive, saying that to attack someone’s faith was a horrible thing to do.

It caused me to wonder why so many feel compelled to embrace willful ignorance. By that, I mean a willful ignoring of masses of real, verifiable and available evidence simply because it conflicts with one’s own preconceptions and challenges one’s fears. With this in mind, I would like to share the following with those who believe the truth can only be found within a single mind set, or book.

What is science? Real scientists - especially the great ones - started out as kids totally amazed at the world they saw (discovered) around themselves. What’s out there? How it works? Why it works the way it does? What it all means? At its core science is that natural awe and curiosity at god’s creation all grown up.

What is science’s sin? Science established straight-forward rules and guidelines in order to organize our inborn desire to pursue an understanding of the miraculous creation we witness around us. These rules are solid and won’t be bent for those who have convinced themselves they are gifted with superior insights. If those “superior insights” can’t pass the scientifically established hurdles they are not allowed within the arena of science. It is fitting and proper that agenda driven unsupported opinions remain outside this venue of science. There are other realms these beliefs belong to such as politics, philosophy, religion.

The best thing about science’s rules aren’t what they reject but rather all they are open to. Science’s guidelines are organized in such a way that any member of humanity, from any point on our globe, has the opportunity to participate, even to revolutionize long held beliefs. As long as they are thoughtful enough to adhere to the rules while presenting convincing and verifiable arguments.

Too many ignore what’s written in the Holy Book: “God surpasses all human understanding.” Not one of us has either the authority, nor the justification, to tag God with certitude. We should be clear and appreciative that science is one of humanity’s paths toward an inkling of understanding, or truth if you want. Always remembering that other paths such as those provided by the religions that abound are also relevant. Like the solid and void of a picture frame we need them both.

This is pure speculation, but it seems to me the most intuitive answer is simply protection from the elements. Man wears clothes, man can thrive in cooler climates. This seems to correlate with the fact that most bareskinned cultures (for lack of a better phrase) exist in warmer, more seasonless climes.

This does nothing to address the 'shame' part of the question, but cultural practicality can often lead to cultural stigma (for instance, spreading the notion that smoking is unhealthy has gone hand-in-hand with attaching stigmas of uncleanliness and unattractiveness). I believe (my own assumption, without actual research) this extends to many social stigmas, such as our aversion to excrement, spit/saliva, religious 'food laws' and others.

My 2¢.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/realmedia/sunday/s20060702c.ram